Why is faith considered a virtue?

[chakka35]

Religionists on this site and elsewhere in the world of belief always quote faith as a virtue, something to be proud of.

Why?

'Faith' is a euphemism for 'blind credulity' or 'belief without the need for evidence'. Why is that something to admire?

Suppose I were to claim that there are unicorns in the Amazon forests. Asked for the evidence for my claim, I reply that I have no evidence, purely faith. Would people step back from further questioning and say in hushed tones "Oh, my word, isn't his faith wonderful! We must respect that."?

Of course they wouldn't. They'd dismiss my claim with a shrug and a vague idea that I was some sort of a nutter. So why is 'faith' looked at in such a different light when it refers to gods and the like?

[Zabadak]

Jomifl - I could also take exception to "'faith' is a euphemism for 'blind credulity' or 'belief without the need for evidence'", which is pretty crass as a definition to kick of a discussion. Underlying that is the interesting assumption that if you are in possession of the "evidence", faith is no longer necessary. Once you've twigged the fact that Santa is your dad in a costume, you can't (and don't need) to believe any longer and you're out in the cold, hard world of facts. There IS in the condescending "their belief gives them a mental security blanket, and keeps them under some sort of control.
However, we must also question their intellectual credibility" an underlying declaration that "of course, we being in possession of more facts, know better."
I readily concede that suggesting that "people here know everything" is a wild exaggeration on my part: where I come from, we call it irony. But there IS at least the suggestion from some that "we are better informed that these poor folks who have faith" that itself shows a rather blind faith in our abilities to uncover, organise and understand evidence.

[jomifl]

Thank god for that.

[jomifl]

wildwood I think you might be a closet mazdaologist, failing that an areligionist

[jomifl]

We don't need 'faith in our abilities to uncover, organise and understand evidence.'
we just get on and do it and so far it is still working.
Why not come along for the ride, its free and you can keep your religion too.

[Zabadak]

Interesting. How can you tell it's working?

[Zabadak]

Consider a hamster. In his wheel, he tries (experimentally) grabbing the next bar along. The wheel turns, so he puts his discovery to the test by trying the next bar. Before long, he's whizzing merrily around. Whee! It's working!

[woofgang]

"Thanks woofgang that’s a bit clearer. Respect for another persons point of view doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, how could you agree with everyone? "

thats what i said.

"That said, respect for another persons point of view is respect for the person not for their viewpoint. How could you have respect for a view that it is OK to stone somebody to death because they ‘allowed’ themselves to be raped. "

Did you notice my caveat "and does not harm others?"

"Although atheists, or rationalists, or humanists, have generally kept a low profile since they know that it is pointless arguing with a ‘person of faith’ there are occasions when the irrational and or self serving ambitions of the faithful have to be challenged."

And again don't confuse God with organised religion and the knaves fools and charlatans who use it.

[woofgang]

part two
"If proselytizing religionists think it is reasonable to knock on somebody’s door on a Sunday morning and tell them that they don’t understand a damn thing then it fair for a non-religionist to say the same to them. That is the quarrel. "

Do what I do and tell them to go away or better, don't answer the door

"I stand by my statement about lazy minds, I am not saying that the believers are lazy, I am saying that they are not using their minds sufficiently. Many is the time that I’ve taken a statement to be true because I had no means of verifying it and then taking it as true, only to find out later that it was complete hogwash. We have to question everything and everybody all the time otherwise we will be conned and ripped off by charlatans, politicians, priests, imams etc"

I agree. As a person with faith, I don't take for granted what anyone says with certain exceptions, eg my DH
"Generally we take people to be sincere and what they tell us to be reasonably true, that is respect for another person. Some people however are misguided and some are liars who seek some kind of gain whether financial or social standing, these we have to guard against. "

Do you? I don't, thats where the making me a better person comes in, I stay polite rather than tell them to multiply off
"Can you imagine how a society would be run if were based on the sayings of a half wit who lived in a cave 2000 years ago. How do you know it isn’t?"

Not sure what your final point is?

[jomifl]

you can tell it's woking the same way as you do when you switch a light on. It does what you expected it to do and possibly what you hoped it would do. Of course if you have enough faith it will do it anyway, won't it, even with no electricity.

[woofgang]

OK jomifl now you have lost me????????

[jomifl]

Hi Woofgang, whatever made you think that I tell anybody to 'multiply off' I think you sneaked that assumption in and I deny it wholeheartedly. I always engage proselytisers in a civilised discussion then agree to disagree. I am glad that you are making yourself a better person, would that we could all have such aspirations.
Regarding my last point, if I need to explain it then you need to think about it more.

[jomifl]

woofgang, the electric light thing was a reply to zabadak's point, however some of these messages are getting a bit out of sync.

[jake-the-peg]

Why don't we train pilots in church?

Why don't doctors pray for the recovery of their cancer patients rather than use drugs?

Ever taken a far with a failed MOT to a vicar rather than a mechanic?

No?

I wonder why

[Zabadak]

To keep things in synch, this is a reply to jomifl's light switch thing.
Your analogy is fine in a universe which poses no other questions than purely cause and effect ones, though you might like to consider:
I prayed for x to happen, and x happened. It's working!
I observe Ramadan and it gives me a sense of well being, and I become a more contented and integrated person. It's working!
But "faith" questions begin with the enquiry: "is there more to life (especially perhaps human life, and more especially mine) than mechanistic cause and effect?".
If you start from the position that nothing than can't be verified by experiment can be real - isn't that in itself "faith"?

[Zabadak]

For Jake-the Peg: Pilots may well benefit from "faith", and for some, a part of their training IS in church or equivalent, just not officially.
Many surgeons do both. Some evidence suggests that where patients are prayed for, their recovery is quicker, which might make us think "it's working".
Would you take a broken person to a car mechanic? That's just horses for courses.

[jake-the-peg]

No Zabadak

Actual prayer makes people worse

Lovely experiment where heart patients were in 3 groups one group was pryed for and told that they were being prayed for, one group prayed for in sectret and one group not.

The secret praying and not pryed for groups made the same recovery - those told they were prayed for had worse recoveries.

But this won't change your mind I'm sure as those with faith reject reason and only ever seem to accept evidence that reinforces their point of view and reject other evidence.

This is why you are wrong in saying science is a form of faith. I and any other rational thinker will accepth that they are wrong if there is evidence to show it, we should be ready to say what evidence we would require.

What evidence would you accept to show that your position is wrong?

None? thought not!

[jomifl]

Just got in from lunch outside, had to provide the lunch myself today so it was a bread cheese and wine job not up to the usual standard. Really lovely day, blue sky, some buzzards circling overhead, figs ripening nicely, the only sound a distant tractor. So about all this religion stuff, oh yes I think the hamster is being given to much credit for his powers of deductive logic, religionist give atheists too much credit for knowing everything or thinking that they do. I can't think why they do that. And I am being credited with being ruder than I am. I know I could be a better person, but at my age any improvement won't last long so why bother.
Now then we all use logic to some degree in our lives depending on our mental abilities, but why is religion ring fenced against any form of logic, can't think why, try harder.
By the way how many of you religionists chose your religion? I'll bet most of you just took the first one that was handed to you, (by your parents). why is it that all the people of faith are convinced that they all belong to the true faith( the one they were born into). They can't all be right so most of them must be wrong as there are so many faiths. Puzzled? I certainly am.

[jomifl]

Thanks Jake, somebody was needed to take over in my lunch break, Ta

[jomifl]

Zabadak, please let me know which airline trains its pilots in church officially or unofficially, I really need to know, not ryanair please!